What makes us eligible to provide this service?

What makes us eligible to provide this service?

The intellectual property lies within the grading software and not within the people managing the business or even the grading assessors.

The proprietary accreditation software (trademark pending) was designed alongside specialists with a background in statistics, data and business analysis. Our technology partners previously developed grading platforms for the hospitality industry where guests graded restaurants and in higher education, where students graded lecturer performance.

- For a grading platform to function correctly, the software requires that the same set of standards are applied to each item, product or service being vetted. In this way all 1-star results receive 1-star, all 2-star results, receive 2-stars and the all 3-star results, receive 3-stars etc

- To remove assessor bias as far as possible, the "relative importance" associated between the product / service and the guest must be fixed. We obtained "relative importance" by talking to Captains of industry and thereafter hard-coded a "relative importance weighting" in the software. Example: Is rust on stainless of high, medium or low importance to guests compared to the comfort of a mattress for example.

- To remove assessor subjectivity as far as possible, we restricted assessor feedback responses to just 5 criteria; namely, 1) Unacceptable 2) Acceptable, 3) Good 4) Very Good or 5) Excellent and then expanded on this to stipulate and hard-code the definition of what constitutes each of these results.

For example:
Unacceptable: - general neglect, poor quality repairs:
In an "unacceptable" condition. General neglect. Obvious structural defects or damage. Excessive amounts of most of the following: stains, rust, chips, cracks, delamination or discolouring. Excessive wear and tear. In need of replacement.

Acceptable - evidence of weathering, repairs of satisfactory workmanship:
In an "acceptable" condition with an acceptable amount of defects. Natural weathering showing some stains, rust, chips, cracks, delamination or discolouring, but still considered acceptable. Evidence of wear and tear. Not in need of replacement.

Good condition - little to no defects, any repairs of good workmanship:
In "good condition". Little to no defects like stains, rust, chips, cracks, delamination or discolouring. Any repairs done of good workmanship. Showing negligible signs of wear and tear.

Very good - No defects, no visible repairs:
In "very good" condition. No defects like stains, rust, chips, cracks, delamination or discolouring. No repairs. Showing little to no wear and tear. Good as new. Well maintained.

Excellent: No defects, no repairs
In "excellent" condition. No stains, rust, chips, cracks, delamination or discolouring. Outstanding workmanship. No repairs. No wear and tear. As new. Clearly well maintained or in older vessels, clearly well maintained over a long period of time.

The grading assessor is not responsible for computing the net result. This is left to the algorithm in the grading software that takes into consideration all of the assessors feedback.

Because the software is designed to largely remove bias and subjectivity, we need not be limited to utilising grading assessors with years of experience in the charter industry, although that would be beneficial and would be our preference.